Pure Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy with Level II Vena Cava Tumor Thrombectomy

Feasibility of single position laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and tumor thrombectomy for left renal cell carcinoma with high-risk Mayo grade 0 and 1 tumor thrombus

Background

To explore the feasibility of single-position laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and tumor thrombectomy for left renal cell carcinoma with high-risk Mayo 0 and 1 tumor thrombus (TT).

Methods

All patients with left renal cell carcinoma and venous TT (high-risk Mayo grade 0 and 1) who were performed single-position LRN and tumor thrombectomy were involved. After the renal artery was controlled by Hem-o-lok, the left renal vein was dissected through descending colon mesentery. The left renal vein was divided by EndoGIA for high-risk Mayo grade 0 TT. For Mayo grade 1 TT, part of the inferior vena cava was blocked by a bulldog clamp after milking the TT into the left renal vein and the inferior vena cava was sutured after complete excision of the TT.

Results

3 patients were involved and operations were performed successfully without conversion to open surgery. The mean operation time was 136 min and the mean estimated blood loss was 60 mL. No postoperative complications occurred.

Conclusions

It is feasible to control left renal vein and partial inferior vena cava through descending colon mesentery in a single position during LRN and tumor thrombectomy for the treatment of high-risk Mayo grade 0 and 1 TT.

Completely laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy and infrahepatic tumor thrombectomy: Comparison of surgical complexity and prognosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the operation complexity and prognosis of completely laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy and infrahepatic tumor thrombectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed and analyzed the clinical data of 87 patients with infrahepatic tumor thrombus from January 2015 to April 2019 retrospectively. Completely laparoscopic infrahepatic tumor thrombectomy was completed in 41 cases, and open surgery was completed in 46 cases.

RESULTS

All 41 patients successfully completed laparoscopic operation, and there were no cases of death during the operation. The completely laparoscopic group were older, had smaller renal tumor diameter, shorter median operation time, lower median intraoperative hemorrhage volume, and lower median transfusion volume of suspended red blood cells compared with open surgeries. The proportion of low-level tumor thrombus (Mayo I) in the completely laparoscopic group was higher (63.4%), while the proportion of low-level tumor thrombus in the open surgery group was lower (30.4%) (P = 0.002). The postoperative complications incidence of laparoscopic surgery was 19.5%, which was lower than that of open surgery (47.8%) (P = 0.004). The mean cancer-specific survival time of the laparoscopic surgery group was 36.6 ± 2.5 months, while that of the open surgery group was 32.3 ± 2.7 months (P = 0.277). There was no statistical difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although completely laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and infrahepatic tumor thrombectomy is a challenging operation, it could be feasible and safely performed, especially in the hands of highly-experienced laparoscopic urologists for well selected cases.

Minimally invasive radical nephrectomy: a contemporary review

Minimally invasive renal surgery has revolutionized the surgical management of renal cancer since the initial report of laparoscopic nephrectomy in 1991. Laparoscopic nephrectomy became the mainstay of management in surgically resectable renal masses since the 1990s. The growing body of literature supporting nephron-sparing surgery over the last two decades has meant that minimally invasive radical nephrectomy (MI-RN) is now the preferred treatment for renal tumors not amenable to partial nephrectomy. While there is a well-described experience with complex radical nephrectomy using standard laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery has shortened the learning curve and facilitated greater uptake of minimally invasive surgery in difficult surgical scenarios traditionally performed open surgically. Increased experience and expertise with robot-assisted renal surgery has led to expansion of the indications for MI-RN to include larger masses, locally advanced renal masses invading adjacent tissues or regional hilar/retroperitoneal lymph nodes, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic disease, and concurrent venous tumor thrombectomy for renal vein or inferior vena cava (IVC) involvement. In this article, we review the various surgical techniques and adjunctive procedures associated with MI-RN.

En bloc retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy for renal cell carcinoma with level 0 to II venous tumor thrombus: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumor thrombus (VTT) is challenging. In the current study, the authors have reported their surgical outcomes and experience with en bloc retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) with inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy for patients with RCC with level 0 to II VTT.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the clinical records of 78 patients who underwent retroperitoneal LRN with IVC thrombectomy from March 2015 to September 2018 was performed. The surgical procedures included establishing the retroperitoneal space, ligating and severing the renal artery, clamping the renal vein and IVC, incising the IVC, and placing the renal and tumor thrombus en bloc into a retrieval bag.

RESULTS

According to the Mayo classification, the tumor thrombus was level 0, I, and II, respectively, in 28 patients, 27 patients, and 23 patients. The median operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were 256 minutes, 400 mL, and 8 days, respectively. A total of 67 patients were not converted to open surgery. No patient died during surgery, and no tumor embolization occurred. Thirteen patients experienced complications. The pathological reports indicated clear cell RCC in 70 patients and other RCC in 8 patients. The median follow-up was 14.5 months, and 61 patients were alive at the time of last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

En bloc retroperitoneal LRN with IVC thrombectomy is a challenging but feasible procedure for experienced surgeons in patients with RCC with level 0 to II VTT.

Role of intraoperative ultrasound in robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of intraoperative ultrasound on robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava (IVC) tumor thrombectomy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed intraoperative records of 27 patients with RCC and invasion of the IVC who underwent robotic-assisted nephrectomy with tumor thrombectomy at our center between December 2017 and July 2018. Diagnostic utility and impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), intraoperative robotic-assisted ultrasonography, and intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) on surgical management were extracted from the surgical notes and intraoperative ultrasound reports.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with thrombus had intraoperative ultrasound. Complete tumor removal was achieved in 22 patients, IVC transection in 5 patients, and no residual tumor was observed in all patients. Intraoperative TEE changed the robotic surgical strategy in three patients by monitoring thrombus-level regression. Downstaging of the thrombus level occurred in three patients: Levels IV to III in one and Levels III to II in two. Intraoperative robotic-assisted ultrasonography has facilitated safe VC clamp placement and identification and protection of collateral vessels during IVC transection in five patients. Intraoperative CEUS helped to differentiate the boundary between tumor thrombus (enhancement and small vessel pulsation) and bland thrombus (hypoechoic or no enhancement) in eight (29.6%) patients with bland thrombus.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative ultrasound is a safe, minimally invasive technique that can provide accurate real-time information regarding the presence and extent of IVC involvement and guidance for placement of a vena cava clamp, confirming the character of the thrombus to plan an optimal surgical approach.

[Comparison of various imaging in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus combined with bland thrombus]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the clinical and imaging data of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus (IVCTT), and to assess the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, enhanced computed tomography (CT) and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of RCC with IVCTT combined with bland thrombus was assessed.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and imaging data of 56 RCC patients with IVCTT who underwent radical nephrectomy and IVC thrombectomy between January 2014 and July 2018 in Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital. All the patients underwent US, enhanced CT and enhanced MRI preoperatively, and all the cases were confirmed with RCC with IVCTT by histological evaluation.

RESULTS

The criteria of RCC with IVCTT combined with bland thrombus was confirmed by intraoperative observation and postoperative pathology. The 56 patients were divided into bland thrombus group (n=18) and non bland thrombus group (n=38). Compared the two groups, it was found that the length of IVCTT was longer [(10.50 ± 5.55) cm vs.(6.66 ± 3.73) cm, P=0.014]; the ratio of diameter of IVCTT to maximum coronal diameter of IVC was closer to 1 [1.0 (0.7, 1.0) vs. 0.9 (0.2, 1.0), P=0.004]; the proportion of lower limb edema was higher [66.7(12/8)% vs.5.3%(2/36), P=0.005]；the proportion of segmental resection or interrupt of IVC was higher [66.7%(12/18) vs.15.8%(6/38), P<0.001], with statistical significance. Compared with the three imaging methods of US, enhanced CT and MRI, the highest sensitivity was MRI (77.8%), the highest specificity was enhanced MRI and enhanced CT (97.4%), the highest accuracy was enhanced CT and enhanced MRI (83.9%), the highest positive predictive value was enhanced CT (90.9%) and the highest negative predictive value was enhanced MRI (89.2%).

CONCLUSION

For the patients that RCC with IVCTT combined with bland thrombus, the length of IVCTT is longer, and the ratio of the diameter of IVCTT to the maximum corona diameter of IVC is closer to 1, and more likely to cause lower limb edema. Preoperative comprehensive evaluation of multiple images is needed to improve the accuracy of diagnosis.

Techniques and outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombosis: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend considering surgical excision of non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis in patients with acceptable performance status. Of note, several authors have pioneered specific techniques for laparoscopic and robotic management of renal cancer with level I-IV IVC thrombosis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the English-language literature on surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive radical nephrectomy (RN) and IVC thrombectomy for nonmetastatic RCC was performed without time filters using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science (WoS) databases in September 2018 according to the PRISMA statement recommendations.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 28 studies were selected for qualitative analysis (N.=13 on laparoscopic surgery, N.=15 on robotic surgery). The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low. Laparoscopic techniques included hand-assisted, hybrid and pure laparoscopic approaches. Most of these series included right-sided tumors with predominantly level I or II IVC thrombi. Similarly, most robotic series reported right-sided RCC with level I-II IVC thrombosis; yet, few authors extended the indication to level III thrombi and to left-sided RCC. Surgical techniques for minimally-invasive IVC thrombectomy evolved over the years, with specific technical nuances aiming to tailor surgical strategy according to both tumor side and thrombus extent. Among the included studies, perioperative outcomes were promising.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally-invasive surgery is technically feasible and has been shown to achieve acceptable perioperative outcomes in selected patients with renal cancer and IVC thrombosis. The evidence is premature to draw conclusions on intermediate-long term oncologic outcomes. Robotic surgery allowed to extend surgical indications to more challenging cases with more extensive tumor thrombosis. Nonetheless, global experience on minimally-invasive IVC thrombectomy is limited to high-volume surgeons at high-volume Centers. Future research is needed to prove its non-inferiority as compared to open surgery and to define its benefits and limits.

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy: A combined retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach

Renal cell carcinoma with inferior cava thrombus indicates biologically aggressive cancer, so the complete surgical resection remains standard of care with best long-term outcomes. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with vena cava thrombectomy represents nowadays a mini-invasive surgical alternative to the classic open nephrectomy. We present the case of a patient with incidental diagnosis of a right renal mass with level II inferior cava thrombus completely managed with both retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches. The use of a double access was planned to ensure a safe and complete vascular control. In our opinion, optimal patient selection, extensive laparoscopic experience, and knowledge of both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches are critical elements for the safe application of this technique, although this procedure remains challenging and technically demanding.

Laparoscopic ultrasonography: The wave of the future in renal cell carcinoma?

Laparoscopic or robotic surgery is the main method of treating renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Laparoscopic surgery can accurately target lesions and shorten patient recovery time. Renal endogenous tumors or inferior vena cava tumor thrombi are very difficult to remove using the laparoscopic approach. The emergence of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) has solved this problem. LUS can assist in the detection of tumor boundaries and the extent of tumor thrombi. The lack of tactile feedback may hinder the development of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of renal cancer. LUS has become an important tool that has improved the rates of successful surgery. LUS is applied in not only early and locally advanced RCC treatment but also in monitoring ablation therapy, testing renal blood perfusion, and exposing renal pedicles. Sonographic techniques used for LUS include initial B-mode, Doppler, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Contrast agents applied for CEUS do not induce nephrotoxicity and can display renal perfusion more accurately than the regular color Doppler ultrasound. According to current literature, LUS is a promising technique for the treatment of RCC, especially for endogenous RCC or RCC with thrombosis, and for monitoring the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation, although further well-designed studies are warranted.

Laparascopic nephrectomy: different techniques and approaches

Nephrectomy is, perhaps, one of the techniques in which laparoscopic approach has been widely used. It has quickly evolved since Clayman introduced it in 1990 with a renal tumor. Since then, its goodness has been extrapolated to most entities that require surgical removal of the kidney. We review the current most discussed aspects referred to the main laparoscopic nephrectomy techniques (simple nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, radical, and nephron-sparing nephrectomy) and particularities of this approach.

Feasibility of Pure Conventional Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy With Level II Vena Caval Tumor Thrombectomy

OBJECTIVE

To report our surgical outcomes and experiences with pure conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and tumor thrombectomy for patients with right renal tumors and level II inferior vena caval tumor thrombus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2012 to June 2014, five patients underwent pure conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and tumor thrombectomy. After the inferior vena cava was blocked using tourniquet loops above and below the thrombus with the contralateral renal vein being clamped, the inferior vena cava was opened, and the tumor thrombus was fully extracted.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 57 years (43-71 years) and the mean body mass index was 22.44 kg/m(2) (20-25 kg/m(2)). The mean operative time was 241 minutes (180-300 minutes) and the mean estimated blood loss was 290 ml (50-1000 mL). The mean tumor size was 6.9 cm (3.5-9 cm) and the mean tumor thrombus length was 5.5 cm (4-10 cm). One patient needed an intraoperative transfusion, and the patient encountered bilateral lower limb deep vein thrombus. With a mean follow-up of 11.5 months (5-30 months), one patient was identified with lung metastasis 4 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Although pure conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy and tumor thrombectomy for level II tumor thrombus are challenging, they are feasible in carefully selected patients. More studies are needed to confirm their superiority and oncologic outcomes.

Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy: Different Sides Require Different Techniques

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombectomy (RAL-IVCTE) have been investigated in limited reports.

OBJECTIVE

To share our initial experience with RAL-IVCTE, as well as describe respectively the detailed techniques for RAL-IVCTE for left or right renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From May 2013 to July 2014, 17 patients with RCC involving IVC tumor thrombus were admitted to our hospital.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

For right RCC, the caudal IVC, left renal vein, and cephalic IVC were sequentially clamped. The IVC wall was cut, and the thrombus was removed. For left RCC, the left renal vein, which included the thrombus, was ligated with Endo-GIA. The caudal IVC, right renal artery, right renal vein, and cephalic IVC were sequentially clamped.

MEASUREMENTS

The detailed techniques for RAL-IVCTE for different sides were described and the perioperative outcomes recorded.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The operations were successfully performed without open conversion. Median operation time was 131min (100-150min) and 250min (190-275min) for the right and left RCC, respectively. Median estimated blood loss was 240ml (145-320ml). Median IVC blocking time was 17min (12-25min). For left RCC, median warm ischemia time for the right kidney was 18min (14-22min). A grade IV complication-bleeding from tributaries of the IVC-developed in one case and was successfully resolved with intraoperative endoscopic suture.

CONCLUSIONS

RAL-IVCTE is safe and feasible. For left RCC involving IVC thrombus, right renal warm ischemia time is necessary during the procedure, requiring a more advanced technical skill. The therapeutic effect and overall survival rate require further investigation with a larger sample size and longer follow-up.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted laparoscopic inferior vena cava thrombectomy is technically challenging but safe and feasible. The therapeutic effect needs further investigation.